37344 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

Preliminary Results of the Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following dumping margins exist for the

period June 1, 1996, through May 30,

1997:

Manufacturer/exporter

Margin

(percent)

Wafangdian ..................................... 0.00

Luoyang .......................................... 1.82

CMC ................................................ 0.02

Xiangfan .......................................... 14.93

Zhejiang .......................................... 2.27

Wanxiang ........................................ 0.00

Liaoning .......................................... 0.68

Premier ........................................... 3.99

Chin Jun .......................................... 0.21

ZX (the new shipper) ...................... 0.00

PRC Rate ........................................ 29.40

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Interested

parties may also request a hearing

within thirty days of publication. If

requested, a hearing will be held 37

days after publication. Interested parties

may submit case briefs within thirty

days of publication. Rebuttal briefs,

which must be limited to issues raised

in the case briefs, may be filed not later

than five days after the case briefs. The

Department will issue a notice of the

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

briefs, within 120 days from the

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. With respect to EP sales for

these preliminary results, we divided

the total dumping margins (calculated

as the difference between NV and EP)

for each importer/customer by the total

number of units sold to that importer/

customer. If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results of

administrative and new shipper review,

we will direct Customs to assess the

resulting per-unit dollar amount against

each unit of merchandise in each of that

importer’s/customer’s entries under the

order during the review period.

Although this will result in assessing

different percentage margins for

individual entries, the total

antidumping duties collected for each

importer/customer under the order for

the review period will be almost exactly

equal to the total dumping margins.

For CEP sales, we divided the total

dumping margins for the reviewed sales

by the total entered value of those

reviewed sales for each importer/

customer. If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will direct

Customs to assess the resulting

percentage margin against the entered

Customs values for the subject

merchandise on each of that importer’s/

customer’s entries during the review

period. While the Department is aware

that the entered value of sales during

the POR is not necessarily equal to the

entered value of entries during the POR,

use of entered value of sales as the basis

of the assessment rate permits the

Department to collect a reasonable

approximation of the antidumping

duties which would have been

determined if the Department had

review those sales of merchandise

actually entered during the POR.

The following cash deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of the subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for the PRC

companies named above the cash

deposit rates will be the rates for these

firms established in the final results of

this review, except that for exporters

with de minimis rates, i.e., less than

0.50 percent, no deposit will be

required; (2) for all remaining PRC

exporters, all of which were found not

to be entitled to separate rates, the cash

deposit will be 29.40 percent; and (3) for

non-PRC exporters Premier and Chin

Jun the cash deposit rates will be the

rates established in the final results of

this review; (4) for non-PRC exporters of

subject merchandise from the PRC,

other than Premier and Chin Jun, the

cash deposit rate will be the rate

applicable to the PRC supplier of that

exporter. These deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with thisrequirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 771(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 30, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18301 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–054, A–588–604]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

From Japan, and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in

Outside Diameter, and Components

Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews and Recission in Part.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

respondents, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty order on tapered

roller bearings (TRBs) and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, from Japan (A–

588–604), and of the antidumping

finding on TRBs, four inches or less in

outside diameter, and components

thereof, from Japan (A–588–054). The

review of the A–588–054 finding covers

two manufacturers/exporters and one

reseller/exporter of subject merchandise

to the United States during the period

October 1, 1996 through September 30,

1997. The review of the A–588–604

order covers two manufacturers/

exporters and one reseller/exporter, and

the period October 1, 1996 through

September 30, 1997.

We preliminarily determine that sales

of TRBs have been made below the

normal value (NV). If these preliminary

results are adopted in our final results

of administrative reviews, we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess antidumping duties based on the

difference between United States price

(USP) and the normal value. Interested

parties are invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Parties which

submit argument in these proceedings

are requested to submit with the

argument (1) a statement of the issues

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Ranado or Stephanie Arthur,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37345

AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–3518 or, 482–6312,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations are to

the Department’s regulations, 19 CFR

part 351 (62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997)).

Background

On August 18, 1976, the Treasury

Department published in the Federal

Register (41 FR 34974) the antidumping

finding on TRBs from Japan, and on

October 6, 1987, the Department

published the antidumping duty order

on TRBs from Japan (52 FR 37352). On

October 2, 1997, the Department

published the notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request Administrative Review’’ for

both TRBs cases covering the period

October 1, 1996 through September 30,

1997 (62 FR 51628).

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b), on October 28, 1997, NTN

Corporation (NTN) requested that we

conduct a review of its sales in the A–

588–604 case. In addition, on October

31, 1997, Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. (Koyo)

requested that we conduct a review of

its sales in the A–588–054 case, and Fuji

Heavy Industries, Ltd. (Fuji) and NSK

Ltd. (NSK) requested that we conduct a

review of their sales in both the A–588–

054 and A–588–604 TRB cases. On

November 15, 1997, we published in the

Federal Register a notice of initiation of

these antidumping duty administrative

reviews covering the period October 1,

1996 through September 30, 1997 (62

FR 58513).

Scope of the Reviews

Imports covered by the A–588–054

finding are sales or entries of TRBs, four

inches or less in outside diameter when

assembled, including inner race or cone

assemblies and outer races or cups, sold

either as a unit or separately. This

merchandise is classified under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

numbers 8482.20.00 and 8482.99.30.

Imports covered by the A–588–604

order include TRBs and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, which are

flange, take-up cartridge, and hanger

units incorporating TRBs, and roller

housings (except pillow blocks)

incorporating tapered rollers, with or

without spindles, whether or not for

automotive use. Products subject to the

A–588–054 finding are not included

within the scope of the A–588–604

order, except those manufactured by

NTN. This merchandise is currently

classifiable under HTS item numbers

8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8482.20.20,

8483.20.80, 8482.91.00, 8483.30.80,

8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, and 8483.90.60.

The HTS item numbers listed above for

both the A–588–054 finding and the A–

588–604 order are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written descriptions remain

dispositive.

The period for each review is October

1, 1996 through September 30, 1997.

The review of the A–588–054 finding

covers TRB sales by two manufacturers/

exporters (Koyo and NSK) and one

reseller/exporter (Fuji). The review of

the A–588–604 order covers TRB sales

by two manufacturers/exporters (NTN

and NSK) and one reseller/exporter

(Fuji). As explained in the ‘‘Recission in

Part’’ section of this notice, we are

terminating our reviews in both the A–

588–054 and A–588–604 cases for two

of the four firms.

Recission in Part

In accordance with section

351.213(d)(1) of the Department’s

regulations, on January 9, 1998, NSK

withdrew its request for review in both

the A–588–054 and A–588–604 cases. In

addition, on January 23, 1998, Fuji

withdrew its request for review in both

the A–588–054 and A–588–604 cases.

Because we received timely requests for

the withdrawal of review from both

NSK and Fuji, and because no other

party to the proceedings requested a

review for NSK and Fuji in either the A–

588–054 or A–588–604 cases, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),

we are rescinding both the A–588–054

and A–588–604 reviews for NSK and

Fuji.

Use of Facts Available

We preliminary determine, in

accordance with section 776(a) of the

Act, that the use of facts available is

appropriate in one type of situation. We

used partial facts available in instances

where we were unable to use some

portion of a response in calculating the

dumping margin. For partial facts

available, we extrapolated information

from the company’s response and used

that information in our calculations.

Koyo’s response indicates that for

certain sales to original equipment

manufacturers (OEM sales) there were

no pre-sale freight expenses. However,

from the information reported, we were

unable to identify those OEM sales for

which Koyo incurred no pre-sale freight

expenses; therefore, we have applied

non-adverse facts available and

recalculated the expense adjustment.

For further information, please see the

preliminary analysis memorandum on

file for Koyo.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

Because all of Koyo’s sales and certain

of NTN’s sales of subject merchandise

were first sold to unaffiliated purchasers

after importation into the United States,

in calculating U.S. price we used

constructed export price (CEP) as

defined in section 772(b) of the Act, for

all of Koyo’s sales and certain of NTN’s

sales. We based CEP on the packed,

delivered price to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

for discounts, billing adjustments,

freight allowances, and rebates.

Pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the

Act, we reduced this price for

movement expenses (Japanese pre-sale

inland freight, Japanese post-sale inland

freight, international air and/or ocean

freight, marine insurance, Japanese

brokerage and handling, U.S. inland

freight from the port to the warehouse,

U.S. inland freight from the warehouse

to the customer, U.S. duty, and U.S.

brokerage and handling). We also

reduced the price, where applicable, by

an amount for the following expenses

incurred in the selling of the

merchandise in the United States

pursuant to section 772(d)(1) of the Act:

commissions to unaffiliated parties, U.S.

credit, payments to third parties, U.S.

repacking expenses, and indirect selling

expenses (which included, where

applicable, inventory carrying costs,

indirect advertising expenses, and

indirect technical services expenses).

Finally, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of

the Act, we further reduced U.S. price

by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP.

NTN claimed an offsetting adjustment

to U.S. indirect selling expenses to

account for the cost of financing cash

deposits during the POR. In past

reviews we have accepted such an

adjustment, mainly to account for the

opportunity cost associated with making

cash deposits (i.e., the cost of having

money unavailable for a period of time).

However, we have changed our practice

of accepting such an adjustment. See

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, et. al.; Final

Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review, 63 FR 33347 (June 18, 1998).
37346 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

Because certain of NTN’s sales of

subject merchandise were made to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States prior to importation into the

United States and the CEP methodology

was not indicated by the facts of record,

in accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act we used export price (EP) for these

sales. We calculated EP as the packed,

delivered price to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. In

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of

the Act, we reduced this price, where

applicable, by Japanese pre-sale inland

freight, Japanese post-sale inland

freight, international air and/or ocean

freight, marine insurance, Japanese

brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage

and handling, U.S. duty, and U.S.

inland freight.

Where appropriate, in accordance

with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, the

Department also deducts from CEP the

cost of any further manufacture or

assembly in the United States, except

where the special rule provided in

section 772(e) of the Act is applicable.

Section 772(e) of the Act provides that,

where the subject merchandise is

imported by an affiliated person and the

value added in the United States by the

affiliated person is likely to exceed

substantially the value of the subject

merchandise, we shall determine the

CEP for such merchandise using the

price of identical or other subject

merchandise if there is a sufficient

quantity of sales to provide a reasonable

basis for comparison and we determine

that the use of such sales is appropriate.

If there is not a sufficient quantity of

such sales or if we determine that using

the price of identical or other subject

merchandise is not appropriate, we may

use any other reasonable basis to

determine CEP. See Sections 772(e)(1)

and (2) of the Act.

In judging whether the use of

identical or other subject merchandise is

appropriate, the Department must

consider several factors, including

whether it is more appropriate to use

another ‘‘reasonable basis.’’ Under some

circumstances, we may use the standard

methodology as a reasonable alternative

to the methods described in paragraphs

772(e)(1) and (2) of the Act. In deciding

whether it is more appropriate to use

the standard methodology, we have

considered and weighed the burden on

the Department in applying the standard

methodology as a reasonable alternative

and the extent to which application of

the standard methodology will lead to

more accurate results. The burden of

using the standard methodology may

vary from case to case depending on

factors such as the nature of the furthermanufacturing process and the finished

products. The increased accuracy

gained by applying the standard

methodology will vary significantly

from case to case, depending upon such

factors as the amount of value added in

the United States and the proportion of

total U.S. sales that involve further

manufacturing. In cases where the

burden is high, it is more likely that the

Department will determine that

potential gains in accuracy do not

outweigh the burden of applying the

standard methodology. Thus, the

Department will likely determine that

application of the standard methodology

is not more appropriate than application

of the methods described in paragraphs

772(e)(1) and (2), or some other

reasonable alternative methodology. By

contrast, if the burden is relatively low

and there is reason to believe the

standard methodology is likely to be

more accurate, the Department is more

likely to determine that it is not

appropriate to apply the methods

described in paragraphs 772(e)(1) or (2)

of the Act in lieu of the standard

methodology. See Tapered Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished

and Unfinished, from Japan, and

Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or

Less in Outside Diameter, and

Components Thereof, From Japan;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR

47452 at 47455 (September 9, 1997).

NTN imported subject merchandise

(TRBs parts) which was further

processed in the United States. NTN

further manufactured the imported

scope merchandise into merchandise of

the same class or kind as merchandise

within the scope of the A–588–604

order. Based on information provided

by NTN, we first determined whether

the value added in the United States

was likely to exceed substantially the

value of the subject merchandise. We

estimated the value added based on the

differences between the averages of the

prices charged to the first unaffiliated

U.S. customer for the final merchandise

sold (finished TRBs) and the averages of

the prices paid for the subject

merchandise (imported TRBs parts) by

the affiliated party, and determined that

the value added was likely to exceed

substantially the value of the imported

TRB parts.

We then examined whether it would

be appropriate to use sales of nonfurther-manufactured merchandise as a

basis for comparison, as stated under

paragraphs 772(e)(1) and (2) of the Act.

Based on the information provided by

NTN, we determined that the proportion

of its further-manufactured merchandise

to its total imports of subject

merchandise was relatively low. In

NTN’s case, any potential gains in

accuracy gained from examining NTN’s

further-manufactured sales are

outweighed by the burden of the

applying the standard methodology and

that it would be appropriate to apply

one of the methodologies specified in

the statute with respect to NTN’s

imported TRB parts. Furthermore, other

sales are in sufficient quantity for the

purpose of determining dumping

margins for NTN’s imported TRBs

which were further manufactured in the

United States prior to resale. Therefore,

we have used the weighted-average

dumping margins we calculated on

NTN’s sales of non-furthermanufactured TRBs.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Normal Value

A. Viability

Based on 1) the fact that each

company’s quantity of sales in the home

market was greater than five percent of

its sales to the U.S. market and 2) the

absence of any information that a

particular market situation in the

exporting country does not permit a

proper comparison, we determined that

the quantity of the foreign like product

for all respondents sold in the exporting

country was sufficient to permit a

proper comparison with the sales of

subject merchandise to the United

States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the

Act. Therefore, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we

based NV on the prices at which the

foreign like products were first sold for

consumption in the exporting country.

B. Arm’s-Length Sales

For NTN and Koyo we have excluded

from our analysis those sales made to

affiliated customers in the home market

which were not at arm’s length. See

Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We

determined the arm’s-length nature of

home market sales to affiliated parties

by means of our 99.5 percent arm’slength test in which we calculated, for

each model, the percentage difference

between the weighted-average prices to

the affiliated customer and to all

unaffiliated customers and then

calculated, for each affiliated customer,

the overall weighted-average percentage

difference in prices for all models

purchased by the customer. If the

overall weighted-average price ratio for

the affiliated customer was equal to or

greater than 99.5 percent, we

determined that all sales to this

affiliated customer were at arm’s length.

Conversely, if the ratio for a customer

was less than 99.5 percent, we
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37347

determined that all sales to the affiliated

customer were not at arm’s length

because, on average, the affiliated

customer paid less than unaffiliated

customers for the same merchandise,

and therefore we excluded all sales to

the affiliated customer from our

analysis. Where we were unable to

calculate an affiliated-customer ratio

because identical merchandise was not

sold to both affiliated and unaffiliated

customers, we were unable to determine

if these sales were at arm’s length, and,

therefore, we excluded them from our

analysis (see, e.g., Certain Stainless

Steel Wire Rod from France: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 8915

(March 6, 1996); Certain Stainless Steel

Wire Rods from France: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 63 FR 30185 (June 3, 1998)).

C. Cost-of-Production Analysis

Because we disregarded sales below

the cost of production (COP) in our last

completed A–588–054 review for Koyo,

and in our last completed A–588–604

review for NTN, we have reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales

of the foreign like product under

consideration for the determination of

NV in these reviews may have been

made at prices below the COP, as

provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Act (see Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews; Tapered Roller Bearings and

Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

From Japan and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside

Diameter, and Components Thereof,

from Japan, 63 FR 2558 (January 15,

1998)). Therefore, pursuant to section

773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP

investigation of sales by Koyo in the A–

588–054 case and NTN in the A–588–

604 case.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated COP based on

the sum of the costs of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

foreign like product, plus selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(SG&A) and the cost of all expenses

incidental to placing the foreign like

product in condition packed ready for

shipment. We relied on the home

market sales and COP information

provided by Koyo and NTN except in

those instances where the data were not

appropriately quantified or valued (see

the company-specific COP/CV

preliminary results memoranda, on file

in Import Administration’s Central

Records Unit, Room B–099 of the main

Commerce building).

After calculating COP, we tested

whether home market sales of TRBs

were made at prices below COP within

an extended period of time in

substantial quantities and whether such

prices permitted the recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time. We

compared model-specific COPs to the

reported home market prices less any

applicable movement charges,

discounts, and rebates.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of a

respondent’s home market sales for a

model are at prices less than the COP,

we do not disregard any below-cost

sales of that model because we

determine that the below-cost sales were

not made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’

Where 20 percent or more of a

respondent’s home market sales of a

given model are at prices less than COP,

we disregard the below-cost sales

because 1) they are made within an

extended period of time in substantial

quantities, in accordance with sections

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and 2)

based on comparisons of prices to

weighted-average COPs for the POR,

they were at prices which would not

permit the recovery of all costs within

a reasonable period of time, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of

the Act.

The results of our cost tests for Koyo

and NTN indicated that for certain

home market models, less than 20

percent of the sales of the model were

at prices below COP. We therefore

retained all sales of the model in our

analysis and used them as the basis for

determining NV. Our cost test for these

respondents also indicated that, within

an extended period of time (normally

one year, in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), for certain home

market models more than 20 percent of

the home market sales were sold at

prices below COP and were not sold at

prices which would permit recovery of

all costs within a reasonable period of

time. In accordance with section

773(b)(1) of the Act, we therefore

excluded these below-cost sales from

our analysis and used the remaining

above-cost sales as the basis for

determining NV.

D. Product Comparisons

We compared U.S. sales with

contemporaneous sales of the foreign

like product in the home market. We

considered bearings identical on the

basis of nomenclature and determined

most similar TRBs using our sum-of-thedeviations model-match methodology

which compares TRBs according to the

following five physical criteria: inside

diameter, outside diameter, width, load

rating, and Y2 factor. We used a 20

percent difference-in-merchandise

(difmer) cost deviation cap as the

maximum difference in cost allowable

for similar merchandise, which we

calculated as the absolute value of the

difference between the U.S. and home

market variable costs of manufacturing

divided by the U.S. total cost of

manufacturing.

E. Level of Trade (LOT)

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same LOT as the EP or CEP transaction.

The NV LOT is that of the starting-price

sales in the comparison market or, when

NV is based on constructed value (CV),

that of the sales from which we derive

selling, SG&A expenses and profit. For

EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the

starting-price sale, which is usually

from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is

the level of the constructed sale from

the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than EP or CEP, we

examine stages in the marketing process

and selling functions along the chain of

distribution between the producer and

unaffiliated customer. If the

comparison-market sales are at at a

different LOT, and the difference affects

price comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the LOT

of the export transaction, we make an

LOT adjustment under 773(a)(7)(A) of

the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV

level is more remote from the factory

than the CEP level and there is no basis

for determining whether the difference

in the levels between NV and CEP

affects price comparability, we adjust

NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the act

(the CEP offset provision). See Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

than Fair Value; Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

We determined that for Koyo there

were two home market LOTs and one

U.S. LOT (i.e., the CEP LOT). Because

there was no home market LOT

equivalent to the U.S. LOT, and because

NV for Koyo was more remote from the

factory than the CEP, we made a CEP

offset adjustment to NV.

For NTN we found that there were

three home market LOTs and two (EP

and CEP) LOTs in the United States.

Because there were no home market

LOTs equivalent to NTN’s CEP LOT,

and because NV for NTN was more

remote from the factory than the CEP,

we made a CEP offset adjustment to NV.

We also determined that NTN’s EP LOT

was equivalent to one of its LOTs in the
37348 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

home market. Because we determined

that there was a pattern of consistent

price differences, we made a LOT

adjustment to NV for NTN when we

compared sales at different LOTs. For a

company-specific description of our

LOT analysis, see the preliminary

analysis memoranda.

F. Home Market Price

We based home market prices on the

packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to

affiliated purchasers (where an arm’slength relationship was demonstrated)

and unaffiliated purchasers in the home

market. We made adjustments for

differences in packing and for

movement expenses in accordance with

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

In addition, we made adjustments for

differences in cost attributable to

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, and for

differences in circumstances of sale

(COS) in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.410. For comparison to EP we made

COS adjustments by deducting home

market direct selling expenses and

adding U.S. direct selling expenses. For

comparisons to CEP, we made COS

adjustments to NV by deducting home

market direct selling expenses. We also

made adjustments, where applicable, for

home market indirect selling expenses

to offset U.S. commissions in EP and

CEP calculations. No other adjustments

were claimed or allowed.

On January 8, 1998, the Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the

Court) issued a decision in Cemex v.

United States, 133 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir.

1998). In that case, based on the preURAA version of the Act, the Court

discussed the appropriateness of using

CV as the basis for foreign market value

when the Department finds home

market sales to be outside the ordinary

course of trade. This issue was not

raised by any party in these 1996–97

reviews. However, the URAA amended

the definition of sales outside the

‘‘ordinary course of trade’’ to include

sales below cost. See section 771(15) of

the Act. Consequently, the Department

has reconsidered its practice in

accordance with this court decision and

has determined that it would be

inappropriate to resort directly to CV, in

lieu of foreign market sales, as the basis

for NV if the Department finds foreign

market sales of merchandise identical or

most similar to that sold in the United

States to be outside the ordinary course

of trade. Instead, the Department will

use sales of similar merchandise, if such

sales exist. The Department will use CV

as the basis for NV only when there are

no above-cost sales that are otherwise

suitable for comparison. Therefore, in

this proceeding, when making

comparisons in accordance with section

771(16) of the Act, we considered all

products sold in the home market as

described in the Scope of the

Investigation section of this notice,

above, that were in the ordinary course

of trade for purposes of determining

appropriate product comparisons to

U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of

identical merchandise in the home

market made in the ordinary course of

trade to compare to U.S. sales, we

compared U.S. sales to sales of the most

similar foreign like product made in the

ordinary course of trade, based on the

characteristics listed in Sections B and

C to our antidumping questionnaire. We

have implemented the Court’s decision

in this case, to the extent that the data

on the record permitted. See, e.g., Brass

Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Notice of

Intent Not to Revoke Order in Part, 63

FR 33037, 33038 (June 17, 1998).

We calculated CV based on the cost of

materials and fabrication employed in

producing the subject merchandise,

SG&A, and profit. In accordance with

772(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A

expenses and profit on the amounts

incurred and realized by the respondent

in connection with the production and

sale of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade for

consumption in the foreign country. For

selling expenses, we used the weightedaverage home market selling expenses.

To the extent possible, we calculated CV

by LOT, using the selling expenses and

profit determined for each LOT in the

comparison market. Where appropriate,

we made adjustments to CV in

accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for COS

adjustments and LOT differences. For

comparisons to EP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting home market

direct selling expenses and adding U.S.

direct selling expenses. For comparisons

to CEP, we made COS adjustments by

deducting home market direct selling

expenses. We also made adjustments,

where applicable, for home market

indirect selling expenses to offset

commissions in EP and CEP

comparisons.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our reviews, we

preliminarily determine the following

weighted-average dumping margins

exist for the period October 1, 1996

through September 30, 1997:

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin

(percent)

For the A–588–054 Case:

Koyo Seiko ........................ 7.62

For the A–588–604 Case:

NTN ................................... 18.83

Parties to these proceedings may

request disclosure within five days of

the date of publication of this notice and

may request a hearing within thirty days

of publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held 37 days after the

date of publication, or the first business

day thereafter. Case briefs and/or

written comments from interested

parties may be submitted no later than

30 days after the date of publication.

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

the case briefs and comments, may be

filed no later than 35 days after the date

of publication of this notice. Parties who

submit argument in these proceedings

are requested to submit with the

argument (1) a statement of the issues

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. The Department will issue

final results of these administrative

reviews, including the results of our

analysis of the issues in any such

written comments or at a hearing,

within 120 days of issuance of these

preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. In accordance with 19 CFR

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate

importer-specific ad valorem

assessment rates for the merchandise

based on the ratio of the total amount of

antidumping duties calculated for the

examined sales made during the POR to

the total customs value of the sales used

to calculate those duties. This rate will

be assessed uniformly on all entries of

that particular importer made during the

POR. The Department will issue

appropriate appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service upon

completion of the review.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of TRBs from Japan entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of these

administrative reviews, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) The cash deposit rates for the

reviewed companies will be those rates

established in the final results of these

reviews;

(2) For previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37349

the cash deposit rate will continue to be

the company-specific rate published for

the most recent period;

(3) If the exporter is not a firm

covered in these reviews, a prior review,

or the less-than-fair-value

investigations, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and

(4) If neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in these

or any previous reviews conducted by

the Department, the cash deposit rate for

the A–588–054 case will be 18.07

percent, and 36.52 percent for the A–

588–604 case (see Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews; Tapered Roller Bearings,

Finished and Unfinished, and Parts

Thereof, from Japan and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or less in Outside

Diameter, and Components Thereof,

From Japan, 58 FR 64720 (December 9,

1993)).

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this

review period. Failure to comply with

this requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.213.

Dated: July 2, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18309 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Montana State University-Bozeman;

Notice of Decision on Application for

Duty-Free Entry of Scientific

Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 98–010. Applicant:

Montana State University-Bozeman,

Bozeman, MT 59717. Instrument:

Optical Helium Cryostat. Manufacturer:

Institute of Physics, National Academy

of Sciences of Ukraine, C.I.S. Intended

Use: See notice at 63 FR 12451, March

13, 1998.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as it is

intended to be used, is being

manufactured in the United States.

Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides: (1) Rapid cool-down (30–60

min.), (2) minimal initial vacuum (10¥3

Torr), (3) portable operation and (4) low

evaporation (2–3 liters per cooling

cycle). The National Institute of

Standards and Technology advised June

25, 1998 that (1) These capabilities are

pertinent to the applicant’s intended

purpose and (2) it knows of no domestic

instrument or apparatus of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument for the applicant’s intended

use.

We know of no other instrument or

apparatus of equivalent scientific value

to the foreign instrument which is being

manufactured in the United States.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 98–18306 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Stanford University; Notice of Decision

on Application for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 97–095R. Applicant:

Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA

94304. Instrument: Ultrasound Bone

Densitometer. Manufacturer: McCue Plc,

United Kingdom. Intended Use: See

notice at 62 FR 65679, December 15,

1997.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as it is

intended to be used, is being

manufactured in the United States.

Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides: (1) Reduced transducer size

(1⁄2 inch) appropriate for use with

children’s feet, (2) external calipers for

precise placement of the transducers

and (3) available normative standards

from studies indicating a precision of 3–

5% for repeated measurements. These

capabilities are pertinent to the

applicant’s intended purposes and we

know of no other instrument or

apparatus of equivalent scientific value

to the foreign instrument which is being

manufactured in the United States.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 98–18305 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of Texas at Austin, et al.;

Notice of Consolidated Decision on

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instruments

This is a decision consolidated

pursuant to Section 6(c) of the

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.

L. 89–651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part

301). Related records can be viewed

between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in

Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instruments described below, for such

purposes as each is intended to be used,

is being manufactured in the United

States.

Docket Number: 97–086R. Applicant:

University of Texas at Austin, 78712.

Instrument: 3–D Motion Analysis

System, Model Vicon 140.

Manufacturer: Oxford Metrics, Ltd.,

United Kingdom. Intended Use: See

notice at 62 FR 53594, October 15, 1997.

Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides precise time-matched data

collection for analog samples and video

motion data by using a single clock and

phase-locking analog signals with the

motion data. Advice received from:

National Institutes of Health, June 8,

1998.

Docket Number: 98–016. Applicant:

University of Wisconsin-Madison,

Madison, WI 53706–1490. Instrument:

High Speed Length Controller, Model

308B. Manufacturer: Crystallox, Ltd.,

United Kingdom. Intended Use: See

notice at 63 FR 15831, April 1, 1998.

Reasons: The foreign instrument